Hyderabad Consumer Commission Holds Firm Liable for Mishandling US Visa Appointment; Orders Compensation

Hyderabad Consumer Commission Holds Firm Liable for Mishandling US Visa Appointment; Orders Compensation

Directs it to refund the complainant Rs.17,500 along with 12 percent interest and Rs.5,000 for inconvenience and mental distress

The Hyderabad Bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III has held a visa consultancy agency accountable for mishandling visa appointments and ordered it to refund the fees charged from the client and directed it to offer compensation.

The District Commission comprising M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sridevi (Member), and J. Shyamala (Member) found the visa consultancy firm guilty of deficiency in service and liable for unfair trade practices.

The complainant, Thanthonri Dhandhayuthapani had approached Y-Axis Solutions Private Limited to obtain a US Visa. He alleged that the company failed to provide the agreed-upon services, including preponing an appointment. It, instead, booked a slot with the incorrect credentials of his wife, D Kaveridevi.

He accused the firm of impersonating Kaveridevi and defaming a Senior Central Government Officer in the process. The complainant claimed that due to the firm's negligence, he was unable to visit his daughter studying abroad, and suffered mental agony and stress.

Aggrieved by the services, he filed a complaint with the DCRDC, seeking relief, including a refund of fees, compensation, and costs.

Dhandhayuthapani contended that the visa agency failed to fulfill its service obligations as per the agreement. As requested, it did not prepone his appointment slot and instead booked a slot for his wife with incorrect credentials.

On the other hand, the firm argued that the complainant's refusal to provide login credentials hindered its ability to carry out the services. It contended having tried to assist him by exploring options for rescheduling the appointment but was unable to do so due to a lack of access to necessary information.

Denying any deficiency in service, the agency asserted that issues arose from the complainant's unwillingness to cooperate with their procedures. It maintained it was willing to refund the amount of Rs.17,500 paid by the complainant for the services. However, the company clarified that the US Visa fee of Rs.12,800, paid directly to the Embassy, was non-refundable and not under its control.

The Commission found that the company breached its service obligations and was guilty. After all, it had the appropriate documents of the complainant for facilitating the appointment.

It directed the company to refund the complainant the full fee amount of Rs.17,500 along with an interest of 12 percent from the date of payment. Also, a compensation amount of Rs.5,000 as reparation for the inconvenience and mental distress caused.

The Commission also noted the further payment of $160 US (equivalent to Rs.12,000) made by the complainant for visa office purposes. However, the amount was non-refundable as it had been paid to the US Embassy, and was beyond the company’s control.